METRO VANCOUVER – Two turbaned Sikhs have filed a human rights complaint against International Forest Products, saying a new hard hat policy is preventing them from returning to their jobs at a Delta sawmill.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation,
or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.
If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day.
Click here to sign up.

50 Responses to “Sikhs Upset Over Hardhat Rule”

Why not design a hardhat (motorcycle helmet, bicycle helmet, …) that fits over their turban? Or under the turban? Or even integrated with the turban? Why not solve the problem rather than make a big stink and complain?

They had similar problems being cops, or obeying the traffic laws and wearing helmets. It’s also been an issue that we let them carry around real ceremonial “swords”, which they’ve used to battle against the Hindu’s.

What a bunch of maroons. “They should exempt them”, I get sick and tired of hearing about people wanting to be exempted from this and that rule because of their ridiculous little belief system. Suck it up asshat, you have to follow the rules like the rest of us. Don’t like it? Go find another job. Better yet, start your own business and make your own rules.

I’m halfway between Mu and Michael on this one. Yeah, the Sikhs should figure out some way to accomodate the needs of the many so they can follow some basic safety rules (Like a hardhat shaped like a turban and blessed or whatever they need to do to make it “official”). But I always appreciated the fact that their religion *required* them to be armed . . . I have no fears of the Sikhs being able to defend themselves against the Scientologists. ;)

1) All Sikhs are not immigrants
2) Many Sikhs are citizens
3) Many Sikhs were BORN IN CANADA
4) Many Sikh families have been in Canada for several decades
5) Initiated (amritdhari) Sikhs are required to wear a turban, not a “scarf”
6) The requirement is not to “cover your head” but to have a unique identity. They could cover their heads with a Kleenex. That’s not the point.
7) Jesus, Moses, Ramanand, and all great spiritual leaders wore turbans.
8) Sikhs have fought in wars with and without protective gear, but always with turbans.
9) Some Sikhs DISAGREE with this rule, some AGREE. Even some turban-wearing Sikhs agree that you should wear protective gear in a job like this.
10) These Sikhs are not new immigrants.
11) The RIGHT to protest this rule is guaranteed by our constitution.
12) Nobody has the RIGHT to spread hate speech about individuals, especially based on their RIGHT to protest a rule with which they disagree.
13) The court of Canadian Law runs our justice system, not the court of public opinion.
14) Racism is a blotch on the face of Canadian society today. We have a lot of contempt for the USA, but actually the USA is far more progressive with addressing racial issues than Canada. Canada FAKES its multiculturalism, while the mainstream media always has biased reporting.
15) Sikhs, who are initiated, who wear turbans, who were born in Canada, who agree or disagree with this law, do appreciate and respect and abide by the laws of Canada.
16) Sikhs are protectors and defenders of the Canadian culture, Canadian society, and Canadian laws.
17) Sikhs have been part and parcel of the Canadian landscape for over 100 years, and they are as Canadian as Hockey, Maple Syrup, and the Rockie Mountains.

Perhaps I missed something, Mathias. Did anyone here suggest that all of these Sikhs are immigrants? That fact is irrelevant anyway. All citizens have equal rights, whether they are fresh off the boat or their ancestors were the first to settle the land.

Relevant:

If someone is unable to perform the duties of a job for whatever reason, they shouldn’t be able to work that job. That’s not racist at all, that’s common sense.

Just a small addition; Safety regulations are designed for protecting the people working in the hazardous enviroments.

If one is not willing to follow such regulations, one can employ the services of a lawyer in drafting a document where one affirms that he is willing to work without such devices and any harm, any harm at all is the fault of him and not any other person, firm or organization.

After getting such document notarized they would be free to work without such safety devices but the employer, insurance company and others who might otherwise be at fault of wrongdoing due the lack of adherence to safety regulations would also be protected.

Taking the protection of ones religion against any harm and injury is thus possible but one has to waive all claims for compensation from wordly sources if and when any harm would befall to such a person.

Re post 9, I don’t think that one can guarantee that the signing by the employee of such a waiver, of course drafted by a lawyer, would absolve the parties you list from responsibility in the eyes of the law, in all jurisdictions and in all cases. Ultimately, one would not know until this is brought to court e.g. in the case of a particular incident. In the employer’s shoes, I probably would not want to take the risk, because the damages award could be very high, and the distraction and media attention of a long court case of this sort is usually not good even if you win.

Furthermore, injury for one employee often results in risk to others, e.g. in rescue and recovery, or even secondary accidents that are caused to other workers resulting from the first accident having incapacitated the first party that was injured and so on, wherein those other workers may not have signed similar waiver.

I admit that drafting a truly good waiver is hard and it is hard to know how good it is until it is tested in the courts.

But such a task can be tried by those who want to avoid simple following of safety regulations which are put into order on the benefit of the workers.

Then at least the religous party of such situation is taking responsibility of his actions instead of merely saying ‘those rules do not apply to me as god is on my side, you must comply to my demands’.

Such behaviour is quite annoying for the employer who cannot fire the workers due their religious convictions and are instead forced to expend more for the sake of one or few.

It is quite unfair to those who obey the regulations and do not demand peculiar priviledges.

1) All Sikhs are not immigrants (But the majority are)
2) Many Sikhs are citizens (A very low amount)
3) Many Sikhs were BORN IN CANADA (Also a growing but still low amount)
4) Many Sikh families have been in Canada for several decades (Not learning English and screwing up our housing taxes)
5) Initiated (amritdhari) Sikhs are required to wear a turban, not a â€œscarfâ€ (Religion is dumb)
6) The requirement is not to â€œcover your headâ€ but to have a unique identity. They could cover their heads with a Kleenex. Thatâ€™s not the point. (This is also very dumb)
7) Jesus, Moses, Ramanand, and all great spiritual leaders wore turbans. (I do not consider them great leaders by any means)
8) Sikhs have fought in wars with and without protective gear, but always with turbans. (Making it easy for their enemies to kill, no doubt, which explains the British rule)
9) Some Sikhs DISAGREE with this rule, some AGREE. Even some turban-wearing Sikhs agree that you should wear protective gear in a job like this. (The ones who disagree should be banned from these jobs, and most of society)
10) These Sikhs are not new immigrants. (Who cares?)
11) The RIGHT to protest this rule is guaranteed by our constitution. (We have a constitution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada )
12) Nobody has the RIGHT to spread hate speech about individuals, especially based on their RIGHT to protest a rule with which they disagree. (This is the biggest problem I have with Canadian Law, everyone should have the right to voice their opinion, no matter what it is. You are an idiot for using this to try and protect Sikhism from opinion; telling people they don’t have rights…)
13) The court of Canadian Law runs our justice system, not the court of public opinion. (Not for long)
14) Racism is a blotch on the face of Canadian society today. We have a lot of contempt for the USA, but actually the USA is far more progressive with addressing racial issues than Canada. Canada FAKES its multiculturalism, while the mainstream media always has biased reporting. (Fuck you)
15) Sikhs, who are initiated, who wear turbans, who were born in Canada, who agree or disagree with this law, do appreciate and respect and abide by the laws of Canada. (No they don’t, there are COUNTLESS exmaples of Sikh extremism in Canada, just Google Air India Bombings)
16) Sikhs are protectors and defenders of the Canadian culture, Canadian society, and Canadian laws. (I hate cops)
17) Sikhs have been part and parcel of the Canadian landscape for over 100 years, and they are as Canadian as Hockey, Maple Syrup, and the Rockie Mountains. (Maybe so, but that doesn’t give your group special status or powers over the rest of us, even if it is only wearing a stupid headband)

I don’t get it. Why do people take jobs that have requirement they can’t meet?

Better yet, why can’t employers simply fire them? This is why religion should play no role in actual society, because kicking someone out because they wear a turban is “religious discrimination”, while kicking someone out because they wear a baseball cap is allowed.

“Don’t want to wear a hardhat? Sorry buddy, you signed a contract you would. Still refuse? Well, goodbye then and good luck with your next job.”

I mean, people who don’t like animals don’t become vets. People who can’t handle blood don’t become doctors, and people who don’t want to wear hardhats shouldn’t become construction workers.

If anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning please say so, because I simply think these people are:

A – Idiots
B – Desperate for atention
C – In need of lawsuit-money
D – Morons
E – All of the above

I would love to see someone find a flaw in your reasoning Alcari. That would be amusing since there aren’t any.

I think the root issue is most religious people are religious because they can’t handle thinking they are insignificant specks. Their religion teaches them eventually that they are special, although the christian religion jumps through a bunch of hoops getting there, trying to first convince them that they are lowly sinning trash.

My point is, since their religion teaches them that they are special, that means they are entitled to special status. If they don’t want to wear a hardhat, then damn it, they get treated different than everyone else. Because, as their religion teaches them, they are special.

Well the argument isn’t so much flawed but it does have an inconsistency. The argument you are using concerning animals/vets and blood/doctors isn’t really the same as these would make you incapable of performing your job whereas in this case it means that you can do the job but are more likely to have an accident. The point you touched on about a baseball cap vs. a turban is the more important one. For the former you would get fired for the latter not. Is that fair? Not in my opinion no. The fact that someone’s view is grounded in religion shouldn’t give it special rights. This to me is a very important point as the rule of law should apply equally to everyone and the ability to play the trump of the religious card, which seems to be occurring more a more frequently, is in my eyes a worrying development.

There is a simple answer here. If they insist on wearing there turbans, and they are hurt on the job, then they are responsible for all their medical costs and no workman’s comp. They pay the entire bill, hospital and nursing home. They do not need to wear a turban or carry a knife, these are not religious items, they maybe cultural in nature for these people. They live in Canada and we are all equal and that means no special laws for some people. There are exceptions if your in a wheel chair or having disabilities. But if your not going to follow the law and you get hurt then you pay the hospital bill and any or all nursing care after that, and lets see what symbol is more important to you this one $$$$ or your turban? NB: Sikhs wore Turbans in last World War because the Government at the time was desperate for men and they really did not care what they wore as long as they can shoot a gun.

And I disagree with them just paying their own health costs. What if someone else gets hurt because someone isn’t wearing a hardhat. Example: Someone bumps his head high on a building, and because he’s not wearing a hardhat, faints and falls down, right on top of innocent Bill, minding his own busines, who now has a broken spine.

Wow,
I lived in Canada for 25 years and I recently moved to Los Angeles. I tell everyone in the U.S how accepting people are of Sikhs in Canada. I tell everyone here how Canadians are educated about other cultures and religions. AFTER READING THIS BOARD, I AM SO WRONG. It is one thing to disagree with someone who does not want to wear a hard hat but to critisize them becuase of their beliefs. wow. A new low.

What? So, by your ‘reasoning’, we should criticize the beliefs of the KKK or Hamas? Every belief system should be criticized, it’s the only method we have of determining which are good and which are not. The good ones will weather the criticism just fine.

sidfaiwu – totally agree and again it’s one of the things that seems to be creeping more and more into public life that religions aren’t allowed to be criticised. I can only presume this is because their whole existence is based on such shaky ground that it’s supposed to be unfair to ‘make fun’ of these beliefs. Oh of course this only applies to mainstream religions – if you believe in say the Norse gods that you’ll be thought of as insane, if on the other hand you believe that Jesus was crucified and then came back to life that’s all fine and beyond criticism.

wern;t these asshole’s in Vancouver , the same group who blew up a plane of woman and kid’s over the irish sea , to prove their manhood , its sick when assholes like this can carry a knife , and dickheads on the supreme court in canada let them ,

Its true that every one shud follow the laws of their nation.If Sikhs r not ready to wear hard hat and wearing the same is the job requirement then they shud leave the job.I m from India,not a Sikh.Wt I disagree is post #12.Who the hell r u to say “Fuck you”?Its ur constitution and law who let Sikhs live and settle in Canada.If u really want to Fuck then Fuck the constitution.Why shud u discriminate any belief which has its origin out of Canada.We do respect all religion(believers and no beievers)but believe in self.so Lets not talk about belief and religion talk about law.

If you don’t want to wear a hardhat in a Canadian sawmill, apply for a job in an Indian sawmill. There you can do anything you want, stick your head in the blade if you want, you will be replaced in 2 seconds by another. If you want a job in Canada we respect personal safety, and expect it, and go to great lengths, to achieve it from our employers, and now you don’t want personal safety. Then go back to driving a cab, as far as I know cabbies don’t need helmets.

Just a note… I noticed a lot of people stating “If these guys won’t wear hardhats, why are they in an industry that requires it? Why not get a job elsewhere?”

The thing is, the laws requiring hardhats in the forestry industry in BC are recent. Many of these guys have been working the jobs they have right now for years, in some cases decades, and are now facing losing their jobs because of their (silly) religious dogma. They’re right to be a bit pissed; they’ve been happily working away without any protection, and in comes ‘big brother’ telling them what to do.

Do I think it’s right of them to demand that the laws do not apply? No. But do I understand why they’re pissed off? Hell yeah. Who hasn’t had the rug pulled out from under then by new rules put in place by the man without once being asked about how it will effect work?

Personally, I’m with mu. Build a head-protective device that fits into a turban, so you get to keep your identity and still follow the rules. If you don’t even try, then it’s not about ‘having your own identity’, it’s about pushing yourself in front of others. But I just wanted to point out the fallacy that most people here were falling into; these guys didn’t go interview for a job where they’d have to wear a hardhat, then after they got the job jump up and say “Ha! you can’t make me wear that! I’ve got rights you know!” It was more these guys were working for years, happy as clams, and now their supervisor is telling them they have to choose between their community and their job.

A lot of good points in here… a lot of seriously disrespectful comments too. We are all entitled to our opinions, but you only make yourself look like a racist hate breeder when you insult an individual and their culture.

dave c… there has got to be a better way to say “fuck off back to the shit hole you crawled out of”… man, don’t you look like a respectable individual…

I really like what Michael had to say… “I think the root issue is most religious people are religious because they can’t handle thinking they are insignificant specks.”

Back to the topic at hand… I don’t see the big issue here… if someone wants to bitch and complain about wearing a turban at a construction work site and put themselves in jeopardy as a result, let them… as long as they sign some sort of waiver indicating they can’t take legal action when their head gets split open. And if they aren’t allowed to sign a waiver form there’s probably a good reason for it… either way, a Sikh complaining about wearing a turban has just as much right to complain as you do telling him he should shut up.

So why don’t we all just shut the fuck up, get along and love one another as equals? Oh right… because there is such a thing as religion/politics/control… hmmm, interesting conundrum isn’t it.

It is what it is… and the ONLY way this will ever change is if we abolish all systems, all methods of control, all religions, all politics, all borders… do you really think that is going to happen?! Not unless a lot of shit blows up. And even after there are only a handful of survivors, some asshole would want to lead the rest of the people, and the cycle would start again. It’s endless…

A long long time ago Muslim invaders were killing Sikhs, Hindus and other people not of the Islamic faith. At this time Sikhs looked the same as any other south asian except they were bigger (northern indian aryan background). During one invasion a village was burned to the ground and all the Sikhs and Hindus were rounded up by the Muslims. They were told that they had to watch a Sikh holy man burn/be boiled in a large pot. The Sikh was boiled alive and none of the Sikhs or Hindus went up to help him. So…to make a long story short the Guru (or teacher) asked Sikhs to become babtised and take on 5 symbols that represented special meanings. One of these symbols was the Turban. It was also said by the Guru that it was shameful that Sikhs stood around and let thier fellow Sikh be boiled alive. So the visable symbol of a Turban is tied the fact that if any wrongdoing or crime is being committed a Sikh is supposed to act, and help the person in need/or to help in any negative situation. The Turban is a visable sign that Sikhs wear. Throughout the last 300 years there have been historical documented cases where injustices are being done and Sikhs are asked to assist, not just by othere Sikhs but by Hindus, Muslims and others. In all cases the Sikhs have helped. Do some real research to see why people do what they do.

1. Allow them to wear there turbans!!
2. First day on the job….drop a tool from a couple stories up hitting that person in the head!! See if they dont want to wear a hardhat after that!!
3. If that doesnt work…..then take away any insurance that may be getting provided by the company due to the fact that they are not abiding by safety rules.

Ultimately I look at it like this. Dont wanna follow company wide rules like everyone else…..goodbye!! Religious beliefs are all great and fine….im not taking that away but i am saying this. Religious descrimination is based on the hiring of employees not on individual rules….especially rules that insure more safety on a job site. seriously people….this has nothing to do with the past of these Sikhs…..how they arose, where they came from, who they faught against…ect ect!!! It all comes down to one simple point……to get along you gotta go along!!!

I dont like havin to wear a hardhat either but when i saw a guy get hit in the head with a pipe wrench that fell almost 4 stories and it split his wig open like a watermelon?!?!?!?!……ill wear a fuckin hardhat!!!

Its a nice post about online shopping because Online shopping is fast becoming the most preferred mode of shopping whereby shoppers can reap the advantages of Internet shopping from the luxury of their homes,
Thank You.

sidfaiwu; You sir (or Ma’am), are a genius. One form of religious stupidity should be allowed any more than the other ones, fancy dress souldn’t be a substiute for protective equipment. I wouldn’t use a turban as a helmet any more than I would use a bible as body armor or a burka as a bathing suit. Nice to see a bit of rationalism alive and well, keep it up.

[...] Sikhs Upset Over Hardhat Rule Religious Freaks Posted by root 22 minutes ago (http://religiousfreaks.com) Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation if they care that much they can have custom made hardhats that will work with who hasn 39 t had the rug pulled out from under then by new rules put in place religious freaks powered by wordpress Discuss | Bury | News | Sikhs Upset Over Hardhat Rule Religious Freaks [...]

My Sikh mates play Rugby Football (in England).
They take their turbans off and put a scrum cap on.
No big deal.
If they are required to wear a hard hat in their occupation, they put on the likes of a scrum cap and then a hard hat.
No big deal.

If you are required to wear Hardhats in the job that you are doing, then for your own safety and the safety of the colleagues you work with, you wear the hardhats, if you cant do that, then get another job …Safety is not a matter of what you believe in. For example, If I believed that you can only drive a car after drinking six pints of beer are my rights being infringed if I am pulled up by the police for being under the influence whilst driving ………of course not. ……Sikhs..Get a life, and get back to work or are you more contenders for the funny farm .

Hey, i am thinking of getting a new bike for my husband. He however is very concerned around what type of injuries could happen from biking accidents. See his passion is sports so if he was disabled, he would likely kill himself, no jokes. Does motorbiking injuries most likley occur, or is it usually only death!

Back in 1976, I was working on the construction of the high steel of a nuclear power station in Ontario. There were two Sikh engineers who refused to wear hardhats. So when they were on the site, we used drop rivets from 6 stories up to see if we could bean them. Quite a game. Lots of yelling on their behalf and shaking of fists and even a kirpan or two waved in the air.

If we had connected with one of those rivets, I’m sure it would have killed one of them from that distance – which would have driven home the point – you need to wear protective gear appropriate for the job.

When that evil twit Trudeau talked about a Just Society, what he meant was Canadian Society must Adjust to his new Liberal voting pool he was importing from the far east.

“If we had connected with one of those rivets, I’m sure it would have killed one of them from that distance – which would have driven home the point – you need to wear protective gear appropriate for the job.”

Yes! That is it. We will help ensure the Sikhs safety by killing them. In fact, why not do this to all the construction workers on site, just to make sure their helmets are hard enough.

From 6 stories, those rivets were only getting to maybe 25 m/s, and that’s ignoring drag. Nowhere near even pistol velocity, more like from a weak slingshot. Probably not going to cause much damage to a head either with a helmet or with a turban on. The helmet would be a bit better than the turban, but as long as there’s some padding there, probably not even a headache would result. A bare head would be a lot worse, but probably there would not be a fatality. Unless the rivets were really heavy. Dropping a big girder would be a whole different game, but then a helmet wouldn’t help either.

But if you could get a helmet to fit properly over the turban, that would be even better protection. And not the kind that the Montreal construction mafia offers.

I think your write up was really a sweet kick off to a potential series of write ups about this topic. So many bloggers pretend to comprehend what they are preaching about when it comes to this topic and in reality, very few people actually get it. You seem to know about it however, so I think you need to run with it. Thank you!

19. Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept

Look, I’m Sikh and please understand that most Sikhs won’t file a lawsuit if they are denied a job that requires them to wear hard hats, THEREFORE it is foolish to make fun of the Sikh faith by disrespecting our beliefs.

Im in the engineering field. During duty, all I do is tie my hair in the back and place a hard hat on top. At the end of my duty, I go ahead and tie my turban again. NO BIG DEAL. So for all you bigots/hypocrites on here, think before you speak. Just because your not Sikh doesn’t mean we should be neglected. I wouldn’t make this much noise if I was offended by the above comments.

any more completely unworkable ideas? You have obviously never been part of the work force or you would know that a worker cannot just sign off on safety rules… There is no exceptions. Seriously you should get out more…